Hey
Maria Soledad Escobar - Sun Argentina wrote:
> Say you want a stateful, shared, server-side object, i.e., a singleton.
> EJB
> does not provide this design pattern explicitly. I could use an entity
> bean,
> but these are really intended to be stored in either a database or some
> (other) legacy backend. Writing a stand-alone entity bean (which
> provides
> full transactional semantics, as entities should) is overkill for a
> simple
> singleton. Or, you could use a stateful session bean, but these are
> intended
> to be single-user. (In reality, it is not possible for a container to
> enforce this rule, and thus it could be ignored, but again we find
> ourselves
> doing something quite unnatural in EJB.)
EJBoss 2.0 will provide a variant of a session bean container whose
instance pool only contains one instance. By doing this we allow
singletons to be implemented as a stateless session bean.
If you use this you will depend on our implementation of EJB, but the
bean itself does not contain EJBoss specific code.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dreambean.com
Question reality
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
